Posted on 02/15/2005 1:14:32 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
KATHMANDU - "No news item, article or other reading material shall be censored," reads the first sentence of Article 13 of Nepal's constitution, promulgated after the restoration of democracy in early 1990. But this provision, together with articles covering the right to freedom of expression and the right to seek information on matters of public importance, currently stands suspended - through a decree King Gyanendra issued on February 1.
Article 115 was invoked to declare a state of emergency, suspending some of the other rights Nepali citizens enjoyed, such as the right to property, the right to privacy and the right to constitutional remedy. Notifications subsequently announced by the Ministry of Information and Communications indicate that the restrictions are initially valid for six months. Negative opinion on the spirit of the royal proclamation of February 1 is prohibited.
All ongoing internal debates, hence, on the merits of King Gyanendra's proclamation of February 1, placing the kingdom under his direct rule, need to be examined in a given context.
The king's declared intention is to assume power for a period of three years, and that is for "reactivating multiparty democracy". Since this is a commitment the monarch has made publicly, view some analysts, it is unlikely to be withdrawn or neglected. An alternative to a civilian-looking monarchy could have been a move by the men in uniform - something that happened in Pakistan in 1999, bringing President General Pervez Musharraf into power.
Besides, the international community, including Nepal's immediate neighbors India and China, is closely watching political developments here. And whether the concerns expressed by Washington, New Delhi and London for the restoration of democracy and human rights are genuine still have to be tested.
Was Nepal in dire need of such a drastic step as the one taken on February 1? If yes, was it the king himself who had to take the initiative? "I think so," Kapil Kafley, editor of the Nepali-language daily Raajdhaani, told Asia Times Online. "Disunity among the leading political parties left them too weak to stop the country from sliding towards anarchy; Maoist rebels are not a democratic group who could be trusted to run this country. What else is available other than the traditional institution of monarchy?"
A commentator in the weekly People's Review described the royal initiative as "shock therapy" for a nation that had lain prostrate and bleeding for years. Interestingly, this perception is widely shared, mainly by men and women living in remote and far-flung districts where the violent Maoist rebellion has made their lives unbearable. These rural folk are looking for a sense of relief and security.
Statements welcoming the king's step abound, although some of them have come with caveat tags. The editor of Spotlight weekly offered a comment on Friday advising the king not to be carried away by sycophancy, "which will hardly contribute to any substantive and productive outcome except leading him astray".
The monarch himself now heads a 12-member council of ministers, he announced on February 2. Meetings of this council are conducted in the palace and are chaired by the king.
The king now needs to revamp his palace secretariat so that it becomes first capable of offering public services characterized by a high level of honesty and efficiency. This effort could encourage discipline among the officials responsible for running ministries and departments located in the Singh Durbar, the central secretariat building, which houses the administrative offices whenever an elected government is in office.
Last week, the state-run newspaper Gorakhapatra published a report showing that the secretariat inside Narayanhity Palace had yet to make preparations for post-takeover requirements. The report related to a crucial audience the king granted to Indian Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee last Wednesday, but the official newspaper based its story on a press release issued by the Indian Embassy. And the embassy, in turn, based its release on a statement it received from New Delhi.
Apparently, the palace secretariat had not bothered to publish any notice to that effect. Similarly, people in Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal came to know about an earlier meeting between King Gyanendra and the US envoy, James Moriarty, from non-Nepali sources.
The frequency of visits to the palace by some of the Kathmandu-based ambassadors has to be seen in the context of their stinging reactions to the king's action (Western media call it a royal coup d'etat) on February 1. In the initial US assessment, the royal initiative amounted to "a step back from democracy". In its opinion, the king's action would undermine the Nepali struggle with the Maoist insurgency, a very serious challenge to a peaceful and prosperous future for Nepal.
Nepal's giant southern neighbor, India, also saw the royal move as "a serious setback to the cause of democracy". The European Union's concerns revolved around the questions of multiparty democracy and respect for human rights. China and Pakistan considered the takeover as Nepal's internal affair. Russia hoped Nepal would be able to "independently solve the problem".
Politics, too, are globalized, and concerns for democracy and human rights are understandable. This becomes more pronounced when civil rights are suspended and leaders of political parties are detained or placed under house arrest. Restrictions on political activities, if imposed for an extended period, could similarly create a political vacuum depriving the king of the cushion needed to deal with the Maoists, whose "People's War" entered its 10th year on Sunday.
At present, arrest letters the authorities have issued refer to a period of up to 90 days. Maoists, in the meantime, have given their response negatively to the king's call to give up arms "and return to the mainstream of national politics peacefully". On the contrary, the Maoists are encouraging democratic forces (constitution-abiding political parties) to join hands with them to overthrow the monarchy. Up until now, political parties have not shown any interest in launching any joint movement to scrap the institution of the monarchy.
India's shadow looms
Is India really worried for democracy in Nepal? As the world's largest democracy, leaders in New Delhi have to make it a point to oppose whatever they see as a threat to the democratic system. But their policy often lacks consistency. Bhutan's monarchy and Maldives' presidency provide two striking examples in the neighborhood. Unless New Delhi introduces credible measures aimed at putting pressures on these regimes to liberalize, its concerns for Nepal are unlikely to be to seen as real or farsighted.
It is in this context that India is being criticized in Nepal for scuttling a planned South Asian summit in Dhaka early this month. By denying King Gyanendra a forum to meet his counterparts in the region, New Delhi lost the goodwill it ultimately needs in a country with which it shares borders, as does China (Tibet). After all, Gyanendra already was the head of state of Nepal, well placed to shake hands with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. It was but natural for King Gyanendra to express disappointment about this when he spoke to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan by telephone.
The postponement of the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit simultaneously annoyed Bangladesh and Pakistan, which acts as chairman until the responsibility is formally handed over to Bangladesh. The Sri Lankan president, too, did not give any positive impression about it during her visit to Islamabad last week. "Visionless and sufficiently arrogant" was how Seema Mustafa, an Indian journalist, described the Indian decision and its foreign policy in an article published in The Asian Age on February 5.
What then prompted New Delhi to act the way it did? If contemporary Indian media reports, often attributed to official and intelligence sources, are anything to go by, the Indian establishment was primarily peeved about not being told of the possible royal move in advance. A front-page report in the Indian Express on February 7 said the Indian ambassador and his defense attache had met with Nepal's army chief on January 31. But Royal Nepal Army (RNA) chief Pyar Jung Thapa "did not say a word on the king's next move". The Express news report also blamed Indian intelligence agencies for not providing real-time information on the king's plans for February 1.
Another possible reason New Delhi issued a knee-jerk reaction to the royal takeover is its perception that the Nepali monarch ignored India and the West and staged the coup with the blessings of China and Pakistan. In other words, Nepal's king once again began to play the China card against India. Some of these Indian news reports even found something fishy in Nepal's recent decision to shut down the office in Kathmandu of the representative of the Dalai Lama.
New Delhi initially told Kathmandu that it could stop supplying military equipment for the RNA, which is in the process of modernization. On the advice of Indian army civilian authorities, it reportedly reviewed the stated position, because of the possibility of China and Pakistan stepping in. India, however, has avoided reference to the United States, which is the other main country to offer military assistance to Nepal, in the form of sophisticated equipment and training facilities.
New Delhi's latest stand on Nepal is being debated within India as well. The failing situation in Bangladesh and the destruction of democracy in Nepal should not have been made the reasons to cancel the SAARC summit, said Dr Geeta Madhavan in a South Asian publication posted on a website. Even if the king did not consult or heed to advice from India, New Delhi should not have reacted angrily, said Dr S Chandrasekharan, another Indian analyst. "The official reaction has been rather hard and unnecessary," he said in a writeup on the same website. According to this analyst, since the king has taken a big gamble, he must not be allowed to lose, or else it could be the end of the monarchy.
What comes next? Can India afford to have a Maoist country in the neighborhood with Naxalites (Maoists) in many of its own states? But a section of India's policymakers still appear to hold a view that it is far easier to deal with one person (king) than deal with several leaders representing political parties with inimical ideologies. This assumption would have gained weight if India was being governed by one single party with a majority in the Indian parliament.
Since this is not the case, it is difficult to create a consensus for this purpose among coalition partners. Left-leaning parties may not particularly approve a foreign-policy agenda that seeks to support an executive monarchy for long. In fact, a change of Indian stance was reflected in the official reaction New Delhi gave on February 1 itself. India's support to multiparty democracy and the constitutional monarchy was based on the belief that these were the "two pillars" of political stability in Nepal. "This principle has now been violated with the king forming a government under his chairmanship," India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement.
Does post-coup Nepal face a prospect of aid cuts from Western donors? The answer is maybe, if one were to think only about the restoration of human rights and democracy. Suspension of military assistance, therefore, by the United States, the United Kingdom and India is unlikely as long as Nepal faces the Maoist rebels and as long as the US sustains its "war against terrorism".
As Ajay Sahani, director of the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, told the New York Times on February 2, a Maoist ascension in Nepal would have tremendous potential to destabilize the region, where India and several other countries are battling leftist insurgencies.
The larger question, however, is: Is the Maoist insurgency in and around Nepal something that can be tackled only by military means? No, as it has been said several times in the past few years. The social and economic issues the Maoists have picked up are helping them to prove that theirs is a political movement. A political movement undoubtedly begs a political solution. As US Senator Patrick Leahy of the Foreign Relations Operations Sub-committee put it: "After February 1, they [Maoists] can now make the case that they are not fighting a democratically elected regime, but an anachronistic and repressive monarchy."
Now it is the king's turn to disprove such observations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.